2015 (3) TMI 805

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....storation has been rejected. 2. We have heard Ms.Mehtab, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the records. With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at the admission stage. 3. Brief facts of this case are that: The petitioner-Company, which is engaged in Telecommunication Value Added Services, had entered into partnership agreement with a Telecom Operator in Brazil for rendering Ring Back Tone Services to the customers of Telecom Operator in Brazil. On 09.12.2010, the petitioner filed an application before the first respondent-Authority For Advance Rulings (Income Tax), New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Author....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... subsequent event, the applicant-writ petitioner stated in the affidavit that though the notice fixing the hearing on 16.01.2014 was delivered, but the same was misplaced at the applicant's end and since prior to 16.01.2014 the matter was last heard on 23.4.2012, which was nearly two years back and the applicant had omitted to check the causelist, thus he was unable to be present on the date of hearing. The Authority then, vide its order dated 30.04.2014, rejected the restoration application merely on the ground that the statements made by the applicant-writ petitioner in the two affidavits were contradictory. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of Rule 17 of The Rules, 1996, even if the applicant-writ p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....30.04.2014 deserve to be set aside. Firstly, the order dated 16.01.2014 is an order simply dismissing the application of the petitioner for non-prosecution, whereas Rule 17 of The Rules 1996, permits the Authority to decide the matter exparte on merits. Further, no adequate reason for rejecting the application for restoration has been given in the order dated 30.04.20214. Merely by saying that the averments made in the two affidavits are contradictory would not be sufficient. The Authority ought to have specified as to what was the contradiction in the two affidavits and why the same was not acceptable. 8. After having gone through the two affidavits, what we find is that initially the applicant-writ petitioner had stated that the notice....